PSO: A world of water

[Note: Originally posted at Pittsburgh Symphony Orchestra: Outside Perspectives]

We've had a long couple of weeks here in southwestern Pennsylvania. With a historic snowstorm wrecking havoc on our region everything has been been affected, including the symphony. After a week of snow storms, it was good to return to the symphony.

Tonight was a night of new music. And the composer Mason Bates was here to introduce his piece. He spoke of the various movements of the piece, and described that transitions of the states of water. He reminded us that "glaciers ultimately melt." Then followed by hurricanes and floods, reminiscent of the trials experienced by the city of New Orleans.

In the audience were a number of staff and volunteers of the Red Cross. Over the past two weeks they and their community partners have been hard at work, providing shelter, warmth, comfort and food to many who have been effected by these storms and the power outages that have caused so much trouble to so many.

Earlier today we had been cleaning and repacking our supplies, so many of which were used over the past two weeks. And we also remember that glaciers ultimately melt. As does snow and ice. And as in Liquid Interface following the glaciers melting comes the hurricanes and floods, we are worried about what comes when the snow covering our region melts. But we will be ready.

Book Review: Turn Coat (Book 11 of the Dresden Files) by Jim Butcher (2009)

Turn Coat by Jim Butcher


My rating: 5 of 5 stars
One of the things I like about this series is how the principle character, Harry Dresden, matures. By now, it is not just that he is maturing, he is mentoring others, and this book is about them maturing. We have an old antagonist whose presence provides stress for them, and old friends, who are stressed in the conflicts of the story and we wonder just who they are.

Some themes

1. The training of students. Harry is involved in the training of an apprentice and some others who are learning from him. Earlier in the series Harry had a tendency to hide things from people he cared about. This repeatedly had the effect that the people he cared about stumbled into situations which they did not recognize their peril. By now, his apprentices and students are demanding they be told about the dangers they face in the world, so they can make decisions on if they face the hazard or not. Another model is provided by one of Harry's colleagues who likes to bait Harry's students and lead them into a trap. (Which is something that actually seems like something I occasionally witness.)

2. On proof of guilt and innocence. Another theme that runs through the books is on the nature of guilt, and the difference between perception and fact. For many of the characters, the belief that someone is guilty of an offense is enough to warrent punishment, even to the death. Because even perception threatens the purity of their cause. At one point in the book, Harry, who is known for getting walking where angels fear to tread (if there were angels) walks in on a four way standoff and says "Have you people ever considered talking when you've got a problem?" A statement that can be answered in the negative by many groups, churches, political organizations . . .

3. Will vs. fate. In the Dresden Files series is based on the premise that there is a supernatural work coexisting with our own. But the defining characteristic of humans is that humans have free will, and that makes up for the many abilities that supernatural creatures have. But it is something incomprehensible, because most beings in this world do not have free will. So stereotyping and prejudging abound, where people are judged as having a characteristic based on one event, and nothing, no weight of evidence, or evidence to the contrary can possibly make it different. Again, something that is a common view in the real world.

4. Meaning of love (after all this is Valentine's Day). There are a few levels of this. There is that more chaste type between a person and his/her friends/relations/dependents/companions. There is also the contrast between love and lust (magnified because one class of supernatural beings is a type that feeds on lust. And one member of this class now experiences actual love, which is actually painful to them). And Harry, who is identified in the book as someone who is often viewed as 'weird' (or as a former pastor of mine would say, a freak) as opposed to one of his companions who gets compared to a Greek god, has found love. Which is taken away in a manner cruel. (there is foreshadowing that goes on, but you have to be paying close attention since the object of Harry's affection is not present during the moments of foreshadowing)

These books have been getting better as they go. The relationships are richer, all the characters, main and supporting, grow. And the themes of will, justice, learning and love are explored in complex and deep ways. (even if it is in the context of what is effectively a supernatural gang war)

View all my reviews >>

Movie Review: The Hurt Locker (2009)

The Hurt Locker is set soon after the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq and follows a 3-man Explosives Ordinance Disposal (EOD) team: Sergeant James, Sergeant Sanborn and Specialist Eldridge. Sergeant James joins the team near the end of a one-year tour of duty, following the death of Sergeant Thompson. As the senior in rank, James is the team leader. He is also the EOD Tech (i.e. the one who handles the explosive device). Sanborn is Ranger qualified and acts as a mentor to Eldridge. Eldridge is the young one, fighting his fear of dying in combat.

James has two things against him as a leader. First, he is a replacement team leader close to the end of a tour of duty. i.e. these are short timers counting the days until the end of the tour. Second, he is very aggressive, choosing to tackle difficult problems directly instead of conservatively. And this is the defining conflict of the movie.

A lot of things about the setting are very well done. The overall competence of American forces, especially American NCOs, was on full display. The difficulties in working in insurgent environments where it was hard to tell who was on which side. The desire to help the Iraqi's against the desire to take the safe way out. The tension of going into an environment where nothing is secure and everything is fluid and can easily turn deadly without warning. They even showed the tension within the Army between those who viewed their role as security and combat versus those who viewed victory as something that would only be gained by connecting with the population (in the early days, the political leadership was decidedly on the security/combat only view.)

But in the interest of setting up the story, there are many things that are unreasonable. An EOD team was a highly valuable asset, and would not have been risked travelling without an escort. They would not have been employed as light infantry (something alluded to at one point). A Colonel, (especially one that is not combat arms) would not have been allowed to be outside secure areas without escort (but at least they had the sense to tease him in film about his acknowledged incompetence in potential combat roles). And an EOD tech whose job it was to concentrate intently on a single narrow thing (the explosive device) would not be a team leader with the responsibility for an entire team. The parts taken from disarmed explosives would have been taken for investigation and study, not allowed to be hiding underneath some soldier's bed.

But all is forgiven with how well the conflict between James and Sanborn is done. Every scene becomes a way to address this tension in another way. James aggressiveness versus Sanborn's conservationism (of the "I am a soldier who intends to use my experience to complete my mission and live" variety, not the political variety). James single focus on the technical task and challenge of disarming explosives versus Sanborn's view of situations as a whole. And with all that, the fact that James is in fact the team leader, even if Sanborn is tactically more competent (note that Sanborn is Ranger qualified, something that is made explicit when he fills the role of sniper in one scene.)

One thing that the director and writer find hard to get is motivation. The feel of the environment seems pretty good, showing the confusion and lack of clarity in what can be seen. The characters seem reasonable (the writer spent time with a team, and claims the characters are composites. Even if he put character qualities that should not be in a single person together). But we don't quite get the motivations of the characters. Leaders do not get the luxury of focusing on one technical detail while they ignore their men (the Specialist track is for this group). People who are highly trained in very technical skills e.g. EOD techs) do not tend to turn into cowboys. And a Specialist (which usually implies a few years of experience) near the end of a year long combat tour does not get congratulated for not becoming frozen in a combat situation.

Even so, with what they did get right, it is probably one of the better movies on the current wars (see my other reviews). And the depiction of conflict between James and Sanborn makes it a good film.

Installing rSymPy on Ubuntu. JDK problem (and soln)

I've started using rSymPy, because I find myself having to being able to take derivatives and integrals again. And maybe a Computer Algebra System is something worth learning. I'm learning both Sage as well as Sympy.

Sympy has the advantage of running in pure Python. And with the recent version of Jython 2.5, it means Sympy can run on the Java Virtual Machine. And someone figured out that meant that you could call Sympy from R, using the rJava interface, using the rSymPy package

The problem is configuring R to use rJava. This can be tricky, because R has to be configured to use the Java Development Kit. Under Ubuntu, I have two machines that I had to put this on. It turns out this was easy for one machine, but difficult for the other.

The instructions are to configure R by running the following as root (or sudo)

R CMD javareconf

But then when installing rJava, I got the following error:

configure: error: One or more Java configuration variables are not set.
Make sure R is configured with full Java support (including JDK).

The problem was the JDK. When running javareconf I see:

Java home path : /usr/lib/jvm/java-6-openjdk/jre

Hmm, I thought I was using the Sun Java JDK. So I uninstall openjdk and reinstall the Sun provided JDK. After this, I run javareconf and get what I expect:

Java home path : /usr/lib/jvm/java-6-sun-1.6.0.15/jre

Now, when I use install.packages() to install rSymPy, it works.

Three Primes: Latodami Nature Center, North Park, PA 1/1/2010

[Photos at bottom]

I recently made the jump to a digital SLR after many happy years of using 35mm film SLRs and rangefinders. What really did it: when the local Ritz camera started paring down its film offerings, in particular I no longer have a ready supply of the Kodak 400CN (chromo-negative, meaning it comes out as black and white). Ok, my auto-focus SLR was also getting long in the tooth with the pop-up flash not working, and I've long since given up on using the meters built into my manual SLR and rangefinder (so I'm one of the few photographers my age who use an analog lightmeter.)

I got a Pentax K-x. Main features: it is compact (one of the smallest SLRs with the APS sized sensor) and my Pentax lens collection still works. Like most consumer digital SLRs, it comes with a 18-55mm zoom lens. But like most kit lenses, you get what you pay for. Ok for tourist shots in nice, well lit places where you want simple snapshots, but to get low-light or depth of field effects, you need something else. Options are to spend $1000+ on good zoom lenses, or use primes. (non-zoom lenses). Primes are smaller. They are cheaper. And I already own a few good ones.

It has been a while since I've gone for a decent shoot, so today I decide to take it through its paces. Like any proper project, I need a goal. Today's goal: Three primes. The task, go on a shoot with three prime lenses. In 35mm, you choose the primes so that they are separated by a set ratio, either 1:2 or 1:1.5. So I used to use 24mm:50mm:100mm or 35mm:50mm:75mm. I'm not sure how this works in digital, but I suffer because of the 1:1.5 magnification factor caused by using the APS sensor found in most digital SLRs as opposed to 35mm film. So I go out with the following lenses:
SMC Pentax 2.8 24mm (36mm equivalent)
SMC Pentax-A 2.8 28mm (42mm equivalent)
SMC Pentax-F 1.7 50mm (75mm equivalent)

Some other complications. The 50mm is the only one of these lenses with Auto-Focus. The 24mm does not even have autoexposure. So three lenses, each of them require different operating practices. The 50mm is the easy one. Everything works. The 28mm is not terribly hard either. All exposure and TTL functions work with the -A series lenses as long as the Aperature ring is set to the 'A' position. So I have a functioning non-AF 'Normal' lens. But not with 24mm lens. No 'A' position, so the camera cannot talk to the lens. In my film AF camera, this could not be used, because the built in exposure meter would not work. In the Pentax K-x, it is possible to program one of the buttons (the 'green' button) so that even though the exposure meter did not display, the camera can set the shutter speed for what it thought was correct exposure given the aperture set on the ring when the camera is in manual exposure mode. Then it is your job to set any compensation. The other issue is when putting one of the non-AF lenses on the camera. Because the camera cannot communicate with the lens, you have to tell the camera what the focal length is via the control wheel and a button.

There are a few tasks to undertake today. First is to get used to operating the camera. In particular, a camera that has buttons while wearing gloves because of the snow. The second task is to get used to the effects of magnification on focal length. For digital SLRs, the conversion of focal length for the APS sized sensor is ~ 1:1.5 (only a few upper end DSLRs have full-frame 35mm sensors). Part of being a good photographer is to know the effects of focal length, and compare it to the effects of changing your own position in composition (how it compresses the scene, depth of field, relative sizes and locations of objects in frame, etc.) And the only way to get this is practice. Which digital cameras are supposed to be good for.

Some notes:
- The 24mm is manageable, which is better then I feared. Again what makes it work is the ability of the camera to quickly set a baseline metered position, then you use your old manual exposure skills to make tradeoffs between stops of over or under exposure, as well as the tradeoff between shutter speed and aperture for DoF effects.
- The 28mm pretty much works just like any other lens. I prefer to use manual focusing anyway since I'm as fast as the camera for anything reasonably close.
- The K-x has rubber grip for the right hand which makes the whole hold on when wearing gloves thing not too bad.
- There are only a few buttons on the back. The hardest one is the four-way button set with center button that a lot of cameras have. And the Pentax has the usual 1/2 chiclet sized buttons here. But at least it does not get any smaller, because I think this is as small as I can get while wearing winter gloves, and it is a hassle.

All in all, not a bad shoot. I need more practice working with exposure, and learning how to compensate with the snow (the fact that it was overcast probably saved me today). And I see drooling over camera catalogs in my future)

Book Review: Final Exam - A surgeon's Reflections on Mortality by Pauline Chen

Not long ago, I was at a Pittsburgh Symphony Concert which had pieces that reflected on death and mortality Pittsburgh Symphony: reflections on death. This is another view of the topic, in this case the final exam is for doctor's, who have to face the fact that their patient is facing death and how dealing with this should be part of the doctor's profession. Pauline Chen, a transplant surgeon, makes the case that (1) providing care in death is not part of a regular doctor's training, (2) it really should be (3) there are experiences that can be used to provide this type of training (in the same manner that other parts of the doctor's training are provided through experiences)

When I was an EMT I was told a joke by a nurse. Q: What does 'MD' stand for? A: Made Divine. It was a reference to the fact that doctors had a tendency to believe they were as gods, with the power over life and death. But the problem is that this was not true. At some point, death wins. The reality is that most people are not able to face this honestly. In the case of doctors, because (for many specialties) they see death frequently in their training, one could expect they learn how to work with death. Pauline Chen's point is what they learn is coping mechanisms that allow them to avoid dealing with death. What they do not learn is how to continue care as the patient is known to be approaching death, which is something very different.

In the U.S., this is a controversial subject. There is a large portion of the U.S. population that believes doctors should have no part in discussion with clients how they want to die. (most obviously expressed during this past summer's controversy over what anti-doctor people called "death panels") And on the doctor's side, many of my friends have commented on how the care they were providing to patients who were beyond any reasonable expectation of recovery seemed to be tantamount to torture and mutilation. Forced by families that refused to let their loved ones die with dignity and wanted to fight, despite the costs in pain and suffering of the dying.

What Pauline does is to go through the stages of training of a surgeon, from medical school to residency to fellowship and show how doctors are trained, and then how their training involves the use of experience to teach them how what they learned in school relates to the realities of patients with actual conditions and histories. As she does this, she also talks about how death is dealt with as part of the training. How death is addresses, how the subject of death is ignored through denial or withdrawal, and how the practice of teaching and thinking about death is changing within the medical profession.

Pauline's book is not just the usual 'what is wrong about . . .' As she goes through the training program, she describes experiences that occurred that could have been used as teachable moments, along the same lines that medicine is taught in the modern day. In some cases they came and went without notice. In other cases, she observed mentors dealing with death in what she viewed as highly insightful and humane ways, but without an explicit teaching moment, leading her (as a trainee) to observe (or not) the example without comment. And she discusses some of her own cases. Some cases that she reflects on that she could have handled differently. And some cases where she did not know what to do, but from feedback later (after the patient is deceased) from the family she learns that there was genuine healing for both the patient and family from how she handled the case.

There are a number of lessons here, not just how the medical profession handles death (or avoids it) and how the medical profession could handle/train for dealing with death, but on how one trains others in a profession. I am teaching, not only in the classroom but also with students working on projects. And as part of these projects, we are aware that we are teaching values and an art form to the students working with us, not just the technical skills of our profession. It shows in the how we address the project, how we talk to those outside of our profession, the questions we ask, the questions we choose not to ask, and the directions we choose not to go in. And this book questions those values.

Movie Review: Ride with the Devil by Ang Lee (1999)

Ride with the Devil is set in Missouri and Kansas during the Civil War, when pro-Southern elements waged guerrilla warfare against the Union occupation of Missouri. It is from the point of view of the Southern "bushwackers" as they raid and harass Union forces and sympathizers.

This has an incredible depiction of guerrilla or irregular warfare, known nowadays as insurgency. You see both sides attack civilians who sympathize or support the other side, or even are suspected of supporting the other side. It is shown in raids against isolated settlements, and massacres of entire villages. The use of language in shaping perceptions of one's own actions as well as the opposition. The fighters going to ground blending into the population and depending on the support of civilian supporters. All of these very familiar to anyone with familiarity of Iraq or Afghanistan in recent history, or Algeria, Vietnam or many such places.

The other theme here is the motivations of the Southern sympathizers. The focus on wanting to live their own way without interference, contrasts to the Union, who would impose their rejection of slavery on the Southerners. The portrait of the Southerners is sympathetic. And the view it shows of insurgency and its brutality, especially on civilians who are caught attacked by both sides with no security, is especially hard hitting. Well done movie by Ang Lee.

Lessons Learned: Notes on teaching Fall 2009

The past semester was spent teaching two classes,the introduction to operations research that is typically taught to juniors as their introduction to the more mathematical side of industrial engineering/operations research. It is a required class, so it gets the entire year at once. The other course was a new course in Homeland Security modeling which was a concept course for graduate students. We are working on a emergency response certificate program, and one of the requirements will be a quantitative modeling course.

I had the advantage of the syllabi from the last two people who have taught the course. The main issue is retention of material over time after the course. With that in mind, the course coordinator (a faculty who was given 'ownership' of the class over the long term) and I made the choice to focus on modeling as opposed to algorithms, with the goal of the students learning modeling which can be applied, even if the actual methods are forgotten.

As a preface, I think the reality is that the top students would do well pretty much regardless of how (in)competent the professor is. For them the best I can do is make the claim that something is worth spending time on. But as much as we may be proud of our top students, and we probably can't do much about the bottom, the middle is where we as professors show our worth. And I try to resist the temptation of only thinking about the top of the class in these notes.

1. Focus on modeling and sensitivity. The overt choice was made to focus the course on modeling and sensitivity as opposed to methods. Given that these are engineering students, it is accepted truth that methods are easier to teach then modeling. The issue is that these students have been taking courses that teach them how to follow procedures for 12+ years in their math and science classes, so modeling is something different. And there are lots of people who work in the field who never really learned how to do this.

One result is that the class was more fun to teach. Because the focus was on the modeling, the concepts could be introduced with examples and the models can be built up from understanding the physical example. For some of the models, after going through the example I could discuss the historical situation that led to the model. For one quiz, I used a paragraph from a New York Times article to provide the problem the students had to model.

Response seemed reasonably positive. In particular, there was gradual recognition of what they were learning as various students started clicking as the semester went on ("I've started to think in sets!"). Others were somewhat resistant, as they were much more comfortable following algorithms. (e.g. simplex, Dijkstra's, MST) There was a general resistance to visualizing the problem through the use of diagrams. In the end, the real test is if they have developed modeling skills by next year when they do senior projects. (while they have LP, queuing, simulation, etc. senior projects tend to be process improvement projects.)


2. Software. In my preclass survey of goals, more then half of the students mentioned something about using software. The textbook uses LINDO (matrix generator) and Excel Solver. I had them learn Excel solver and GLPK. I don't think GLPK was any harder the LINDO. In particular, I think software was less important then I expected. Other then the middle portion of the course that focused on sensitivity and duality, there was not much use of the software to actually solve LPs. There was considerably more time spent on interpretation of output. I don't know if the students actually got skilled at using the software. We went through a few rounds of giving instruction, in class examples, live demonstrations of translating a formulation into a model, a YouTube video (by a business school professor demonstrating the Excel Solver) and a grad student presentation on GLPK.

We also found two bugs. Excel had a tendency of giving solutions that violated a constraint. The issue is that there was a default setting for the tolerance that was positive (>0) and was less then the rounding in the standard display. So the Excel solver violated constraints, even on small problems (where finding a feasible solution should not have been too much work). GLPK had a problem with bounds analysis in the Windows version of the software. It turned out that a fix to this problem was recently found and the patch developed by a senior in the Pittsburgh IE department (i.e. someone who took this class a year ago).

3. Class management. It was a 58 person class, so very large. A large portion of the course was taught semi-socratic, mostly the overview of different types of models. While this was fun as an instructor, the issue with socratic method is you go at the speed of the fastest students. Which I soon realized meant that I was loosing a big chunk of the class, even though there is a lot of repetition involved.

4. Team teaching. For the Homeland security course, this was team taught by myself and the head of a Center that was developing the certificate. There was a problem with communication. While the topics were agreed upon, we seem to have somewhat different ideas on what the use and purpose of models are. This was made worse by a lack of a communication plan between us, so when questions came up, they were not resolved. In addition, he had his students in the class do their project that was of very different character then the rest of the class (or the stated purpose of the course), which made grading and advising problematic. Before doing something like this again, I would have to have a more formal discussion on goals and purpose, as well as plan for ongoing adjustments.

Modern Love: A Joint Account that Underwrites our Marriage (New York Times)

Modern Love: A Joint Account that Underwrites our Marriage

By David Sarasohn, New York Times, December 11, 2009

Back when we became engaged, our news was also greeted with baffled curiosity. It was the ’70s, after all, when the freedom to be able to hop from one relationship to the next was as essential as anything in the Bill of Rights. Our friends were profoundly perplexed; nobody, they thought, could want a fondue set that badly. We had already been together three years at that point, pretty much ever since I turned around at the orientation meeting for new history graduate students and saw her in her granny dress. (As I say, it was a long time ago.) Our feelings about marriage may have been shaped by our pursuit of such a traditional area of study. Perhaps our attitudes would have been different had either of us been in gender studies.

Of course, back then no one had heard of gender studies.

The surprise that now greets us at the fact that we’ve managed to stay married so long — as opposed to having shaken hands at some point and decided who kept the ice cream maker — is even more extreme. Friends you haven’t seen for a long time often inquire delicately about the spouse you had when they last saw you.

In this piece, David Sarasohn discusses his experience of marriage, through the years that have seen many of his friends divorce or separated, through the loss of friends as a side effect, through the struggle with infertility (and listening to may supposedly pro-marriage people proclaim that the primary purpose of marriage is to bear children).

When I was 19 I was first told I was entering into an activity that was associated with a high risk for divorce. And of course, of this group of 19-20 year olds, not one blinked at the thought. Now, while this was being said by some kind nurses who were warning us of what we were getting ourselves into, so maybe we could do something about it. And some of us filed that away for when that became an issue. And I've been told many other reasons why relationships would be problematic since them by people without the same level of caring, including my choices of friends, acquaintances, and relations.

There have also been others like that nurse who were more interested in my well being, and if I do get married, that it be done well. First, that this is done with eyes open. We know who we are and how we got this way. And not everyone is ready for a life with such as us. We all knew of stories of people who got into relationships where their partners first priority was to try to get them to stop going on the calls (i.e. the very things that developed the character that made them so appealing, at least to us)

David talks about his marriage and the hard times. What he says:

Being single is all about the future, about the person you’re going to meet at Starbucks or after answering the next scientific compatibility questionnaire. Being married, after a certain point, is about the past, about a steadily growing history of moments that provide a confidence of comfort, an asset that compounds over time. What you share is what you’ve shared, and measuring your communal property in decades puts you in a freakishly high bracket.

So this is what we are looking forward to. Our albums include pictures and letters from war zones, disaster areas, question and thoughts on dealing with risk. Questions about our careers. Engaged and sharing in the toil of our chosen paths. Learning to endure/appreciate/experience each others patterns, reactions and language (spoken and not).

And somehow we take each other. With both of us having edges adapted for environments with little tolerances, somehow we manage.

I am somewhat better with words than my wife is; she is infinitely better with people. In different ways, we translate each other to the rest of the world, and admire each other’s contrasting language skills. Being married to someone you respect for being somehow better than you keeps affection alive. That this impressive person chooses you year after year makes you more pleased with yourself, fueling the kind of mutual self-esteem that can get you through decades.

The other part, about how those decades change over time from obstacles into assets, is something my wife’s student will have to figure out for herself. It could take awhile.

Like, forever.

Book Review: The Fourth Star: Four Generals and the Epic Struggle for the Future of the United States Army by David Cloud and Greg Jaffe

The Fourth Star: Four Generals and the Epic Struggle for the Future of the United States Army by Greg Jaffe

My rating: 4 of 5 stars
This book follows four Generals who have had various levels of command responsibility during the U.S. war and occupation of Iraq from 2003 and on. John Abizaid, Commander CENTCOM from 2003 - 2007. George Casey, Commander MNF-Iraq in 2004-2007 and current Chief of Staff of the Army, Peter Chiarelli, Commander MNC-Iraq (under Casey), and David Patraeus, Commander MNF-Iraq 2007-2009 and current Commander CENTCOM. These were the commanders who took over the occupation of Iraq after Tommy Franks and Ricardo Sanchez. Of importance for this book, these were also officers that recognized that Iraq was not a conventional war and what the U.S. faced in Iraq was an insurgency, one that the military and its political leaders were ill-equipped to fight from an attitude, doctrinal and training standpoint.

The first part of the book was about their training. Abizaid, Chiarelli and Patraeus were all given assignments and training experiences that encouraged them to be thinkers as well as soldiers. Abizaid having spent a few years on a college fellowship in Jordan, Chiarelli and Patraeus both spent time on academic assignments, with graduate school followed by teaching stints at West Point in the Department of Social Sciences, which the book depicts as a wellspring of unconventional ideas, which trained those who spent a tour as instructors in the willingness to question what who the Army prepared for and fought its wars. The book returns to this theme of Sosh as the place where officers were taught to think, which served them well in learning a new kind of war.

The book makes it clear that those that came before them, Franks and Sanchez were completely out of their element. And while Abizaid, Casey and Chiarelli began to understand that things were wrong and had ideas of what needed to be done, they were hampered by and Army that did not want to change, and a political leadership that was more interested in managing U.S. involvement then they were interested in winning in Iraq. And this interest in merely managing gave a growing insurgency (which was being willfully ignored by the U.S. political leadership) room to blossom, and cause the large scale casualties over 2004-2006.

The star of the book is David Petraeus (with Odierno as his understudy). With the exception of his assignment into the hinterland of the Combined Arms Center, which would have been better then the career ending assignment that was another option. But still a disappointment after the lauded 101st Airborne which was one of the brightest spots in the immediate post-invasion occupation of Iraq. The book paints Petraeus as a hard driving genius who was a stickler for detail and drove his people hard. It was evident in his field level commands detailed in the book, and his first combat command as Commander 101st Airborne in the invasion of Iraq and the occupation of Mosul. And his return to the combat zone as Commander MNF-Iraq after rewriting the new Army Counterinsurgency doctrine had the feel of the rescuing hero, taking over from the exhausted Casey and Chiarelli who had to fight off their political supervisors in Washington as much as the insurgency.

How does it fare? Many of the current conventional wisdom does not credit Abizaid, Casey and Chiarelli since they presided over the worst period of the Iraq occupation, even if the seeds were planted before their arrival and they were hamstrung by a civilian leadership that was in denial of the reality of the situation and was more interested in perception then fact. The book notes what they recognized and tried to create, an Army that recognized that it's goal was to win the population, not necessarily just build up a body count. But they were not able, and that failure hung over them. And the lauding of Petraeus may not be misplaced. I remember a Command Sergeant Major preparing me and some other civilian analysts for deployment to Iraq and Afghanistan describing Petraeus as a 'warrior-poet', and this was before Petraeus took his position as Commander MNF-I.

The driving point of the book is the requirement for a military to be flexible in thought and adaptable in the face of an enemy. It is a lesson that is learned with every new war. A peacetime military rewards conformity to standard. An actual war against an adaptable enemy requires leaders who can themselves adapt. The book identifies Charielli and Petraeus as officers of this type. And it also identifies them as generals who are actively raising and promoting the careers of other officers of this mode, in many cases against the desires of some of the institutional army. It means creating room for inventiveness and dissent, which is not always the easiest thing in an institution that is necessarily conservative like the Army. But, even if the heady responsibilty of the life of its soldiers requires some level of conservativism, it also requires innovation in the face of an innovative opponent. The book makes the argument that the Army needs these officers and leaders. And more importantly, it needs institutions that will provide these officers and leaders room to grow, and the ability to question and provide dissent in safety, so that the Army can benefit from them.

View all my reviews >>

PSO: Relections on Death

[This post is originally published at Pittsburgh Symphony Orchestra: Outside Perspectives]

At the beginning of Mozart's Requiem the Pittsburgh Symphony put a commentary noting that while Death was no stranger to Mozart's life, in modern U.S. society we have tried our hardest to make it a stranger to ours.  And I am not an exception.  While I have deployed to war, have been an volunteer EMT, regularly respond to fires and other disasters and take part in activities that entail some degree of risk, like the veteran cop who has never fired his service weapon in anger, I have not had anyone die on me (not for lack of some people trying).  So in a sense, I do not know how I will respond (but a line of counsellors are ready to talk to me when it does.)  And in my professional life, I regularly am faced with the fact that while society may cry out that it values life above all else, and that it refuses to put a price or limit on how much it would pay to keep life, that society indeed does put a price on life, and reacts badly when this is pointed out.

There is a community that does face its own mortality.  And is willing to write about it.  I follow the writing of blogs of soldiers and others involved in our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq on The Sandbox, a project of Gary Trudeau (Doonesbury).  Along with commentary about the absurd in daily life that is common to every first person account of war there are essays on fears, humor, relief, anguish, and sometimes the understanding that this is a serious business that can result in death.

And occasionally there is an essay by someone who has, like Mozart, prepared for his own mortality.  The willingness to acknowledge who you were.  Realising that you had long passed the point where dreams were there for you to reach, but what you have accomplished something in life, and it was worthy of having lived (for most of these writers).  A thankfulness for those who you were privileged to live your life alongside.  And a recognition that you probably did not deserve to have it so good.

My wife and I long since have recognized that some of the things I do are risky.  But it has been a choice that is a part of a rich life, full of joy, laughter, truth, and companionship that I would not trade for the safety and comfort of a life spent in fear and worry.  Already, I have had opportunity to pass on lessons to others who do the same.  And while there are no guarantees in this sort of thing, we treasure the memories and stories that we have been able to add to our families histories.

NYTimes: The Referendum

The Referendum by Tim Kreider, New York Times, September 17, 2009

The Referendum is a phenomenon typical of (but not limited to) midlife, whereby people, increasingly aware of the finiteness of their time in the world, the limitations placed on them by their choices so far, and the narrowing options remaining to them, start judging their peers’ differing choices with reactions ranging from envy to contempt. The Referendum can subtly poison formerly close and uncomplicated relationships, creating tensions between the married and the single, the childless and parents, careerists and the stay-at-home. It’s exacerbated by the far greater diversity of options available to us now than a few decades ago, when everyone had to follow the same drill. We’re all anxiously sizing up how everyone else’s decisions have worked out to reassure ourselves that our own are vindicated — that we are, in some sense, winning.

Tim Kreider's piece was on "arrested adolescence" for the Happy Days column. And he joked that he got the job because, he has never been married at 42. And the stereotype of someone past 30 who is not married is a slacker. Or a freak. It starts at 21 right out of college, and by 25 it is in full force. I used to joke that when I walked into a church, I was timing people before they asked if I was married or dating. (the record for a person was ~28 seconds. That person went straight to 'where is the rest of your family?'. There was no church that I was not asked in less then 10 minutes.) Some thoughts about advice I had been given in the not terrible distant past.


1. We are experiments of one. This is actually a saying of runners. It means that each one of us is different and have our own body characteristics, strengths and limitations. Therefore our goals and the training program to get there needs to be tailored to the individual. For dating/romantic relationships, I would argue that this is the case here as well. Conversely, any advice given that does not recognize that there are wide varieties of people, each of which should approach relationships with people in a way suited for them, it can be dismissed out of hand. Note that I would say broad categories are useful starting point, if the categories are defined as statements of fact rather then statements of worth (if someone cannot figure out the difference, that person probably should not be giving advice.)

3. Making a person's relationship status the first subject of concern. This gets rather old quick. It frankly is a sign that the person your talking through has gone through his/her list of potential conversation topics (none) and has grasped for the one topic they can actually talk about. Because they did not even try to find something interesting to talk about. And the thought that people have become so atrophied in their interests and their world has grown so small that they went to this is horrifying. (see above comments on expected time before relationship status is asked about)

4. ___ is the basis of relationships. There are a wide number of potential commonalities that are put forth as the key to a relationship, and many of them claim that the lack of that particular commonalities leads to broken relationships. Among the ones that are claimed are hobbies, interests in various fields, volunteer work in ___, same religious/church affiliation, racial/ethnic background. It does seem that all of them are true, and none. A professor of mine once advised that you should always more than one focus in life, because at any point in time, one of them will be going well, even if the others are not. And, as I know divorcees who had at one point had any one of these things going for them, none of these areas are sufficient. But I suspect that having a few of them can for the same reason as my professor said, when one area that you have in common takes a dive, other areas of life provide for the opportunities for two people to maintain and build their relationships (or at least keep the pain from the area in trouble from being completely overwhelming).

4. Reactions of singles to being asked about their status. I've always been able to view questions about "do you have a girlfriend" or "are you married" is a complement. Which was usually the case. Because it is usually asked when their is a belief that the answer could reasonably be considered to be yes. If it was beyond belief, the question would not be asked. Of course, there were those who used it as almost a class division. This is annoying at worst.

5. On the view of singles as slackers. This view seems to be predicated on the belief that the only part of the life that was of interest. For example, the stated purpose of the setting that this view is held in. It also is predicated on the view that having a spouse and building a family is the only goal worth discussing. And whatever criteria that a person had for a spouse (e.g. religious affiliation) was meaningless.

6. Singles are social inept/social freaks. I had pastors back in Chicago when I was in grad school tell me this. The key was I was >30 at the time. To be fair, there were a large number of people specifically included by the statement, many of whom would return the sentiment. See (3). The view requires that a person's social interactions do not have any other purpose then finding a mate. Many people can find other outlets for depth and discovery outside of finding a mate. So I was under the apparently mistaken belief in one of several alternative hypothesis (being a PhD candidate at the time) including such things as having certain criteria and being engaged in activities that are widely known as not entirely congruent with establishing romantic relationships. Fortunately, one of the criteria was easily changed to make this a non-issue. But I would still argue that reaching this conclusion without examining if alternative hypothesis exist is silliness.

7. Marriage status as a defining characteristic. This is amusing, but sometimes sad. Not that our wedding day was not a nice big and memorial event. But there have been other big memorial events before and since. And other milestones that can be life-changing as well. My feeling has been that interest in my romantic-style relationships was only amusing, unless you were interested in my other interests as well. There were a number of women who were proposed as potential interests to me that my biggest objection was the fact that the only thing I knew about them was there interest in being married some day. I have a conceit that I have a wide enough range of interests that if I could not find a topic of interest in common with a person, it is not a good sign that we will be developing a friendship at any level.

8. That is mine, and I'll rather break it then let you near it. I used to have a friend who was dating someone who we both knew from the same group. He considered it the height of disloyalty that I thought her life was precious enough so that on a camping trip I stopped her from falling down a hill side and later found her after she had become lost during the night. Now, while he has the wisdom and righteousness of God on his side, reality is I would be dead many times over if there were more people like him in my life. So I'm glad there are not. And the idea of actually living a life with someone who shares those beliefs is repulsive. It reminds me of a kid who breaks a toy instead of being forced to share with a sibling. (actually, later, it me of a story from when I was in Afghanistan, where there were riots after U.S. forces saved the life of a woman. The rioters were claiming that this defiled her and it would have been better to let her die.)

9. Timing. I recently had a friend who got married who was also over 30. And the wedding had multiple references to being married late (or waiting or seeking or any of a number of other euphemisms.) The first time it is mentioned is cute. The 10th is somewhat hammering the point a little too hard. Now, establishing relationships with a partner to go through life is a worthy goal. But there are other worthy goals as well. I would say that at any point in time, every person should have some such goal that they can claim active progress is being made (or at least work is being done). But to go the next step and say that one particular goal overwhelms all others is putting too much stock in that one goal.

10. Exclusivity. We get amused whenever one of us shows up without the other, and the one present asks "why is ___ not here?" But I never expect my partner to be interested in everything I am interested in (again, because I have this conceit that I have a very wide range of things I am interested in, I expect to find one in common with just about anyone, but someone to have all of those interests is beyond belief.) And I think it is healthy to have things that we are both interested in, and things that each of us in engaged in separately. It means there are times we do things together, times we do things apart, and we take turns in lead depending on the setting. The alternative that we only keep the parts of our lives that we have in common would mean that marriage and romantic relationships are personality destroyers rather then builders. I rather like the life I lived. While things change over time, and interests come and go in the general course of life, the the thought that a relationship would mean wholesale culling would make that very unattractive.

PSO: Anticipation and Joy

[Original post at Pittsburgh Symphony Orchestra: Outside Perspectives]

My wife and I came to this weekend's concert with a friend and her young daughter.  The whole week, she has been looking forward to the chance to go to the symphony, the music that she would hear, the dancers to see, the dress she would wear, the dresses that the musicians would wear, all part of the thrill of something that she had not experienced.The evening did not disappoint. We arrived early, because we knew that the Arthur Murray Dance company was having their demonstrations of the Waltz prior to the concert



We watched the dance class and demonstrations as they taught waltz and the polka.



As we got to our seats waiting for the concert to begin our friend was full of excitement, asking what all the instruments were, identifying the drums (timpani) various winds, violins. And she was asking about where the tuba was (answer: wait, it will come out later tonight). And wondering when the pianist was coming out (answer: when the lights dimmed). And then the lights dimmed.

As Sa Chen played with the orchestra in the concerto, we listened to the richness of the playing. The focus on the richness of the part, not the difficulty of the part. Something that we get with some of the older and mature players instead of the display of raw talent we often get from those who are younger. And to our friend, instead of listening to something clearly beyond her level of playing, she listened to music in its richness and sensitive. Then with the waltzes and polka of the second half, she heard the joy and happiness of a celebratory feel of a Vienna in celebration (and the much awaited tuba made its appearance)

We enjoyed the evening, having young friends experiencing the symphony. And other friends we had a chance to talk to throughout the evening, of holidays to enjoy, and milestones of life to celebrate over sweets and desserts.

Movie Review: Baghdad ER (2006)

This documentary follows the emergency room of the 86th Combat Support Hospital (CSH) in Baghdad in 2005. It takes it as a series of vignettes of trauma cases that enter the CSH, a mix of traumas of U.S. military, Iraqi security and Iraqi civilians.

As a documentary, it keeps a very narrow focus on the trauma department. As such, it is graphic and raw in its depiction of the effects of combat. It does some introspection, with the main point that the members of the ER don't see anything changing (likely because they are too far removed). But the narrowness of their work make it not possible to see anything else. (and they properly stay in their lane, even when pushed by the documentary makers)

While this is the documentary that got awards, I like the NOVA episode Life and Death in the War Zone, which followed the 10th CSH immediately following the invasion in 2003. considerably better. While Trauma and operating rooms are flashier and more intense, "Life and Death" covers the hospital as a whole, starting with preparing for deployment and covering the activities of the whole of the hospital, which includes interactions with the outside world (i.e. other then Americans) while "Baghdad ER" is looking at war through a soda straw.

PSO: Steadiness in Chaos

[Originally posted at the Pittsburgh Symphony Outside Perspective]

I was listening to Danielpour's Concerto for Orchestra and noticing the recurring theme as it passed from part to part, popping up in a variety of contexts. Sometimes when the overall tone was almost melodious and sometimes when it was present in the midst of conflict and cacophony. But always there, providing a foundation for all that was going on around this and proving itself adaptable in its many settings.

Among other things, I am teaching a class on disaster preparedness and response. And one of the principles in preparedness is you have to have a framework that is usable in normal everyday situations and adaptable for all sorts of situations that can arise. Because a plan of response that cannot adapt will never be used. And here is a theme that somehow does the same, even as its environment and its place within the environment changes, the theme finds a place. Sometimes up front. Sometimes supporting. But providing a unity to the piece along the way. A good trait to have in a storm.

Veterans Day, 2009: Hanging out with the boys

PSO: The lone individual in the crowd (Berlioz Symphonie fatastique)

[Note: This was originally written for the Pittsburgh Symphony Orchestra Outside Perspectives blog]

On my way to the concert, I was informed by one of the two piano professors I was attending the concert with about the story of the Symphonie fantastique, including the fact that this is the extreme example of programmatic music, to the point of including the interpretation of the music in the score.  And while I tend to favor programmatic music, I think actually telling me what it meant slightly oversimplifies things for my taste.  And (as my wife would tell you) I have no memory, so actually telling me what something means is slightly wasted.  (At my high school, all the smart kids took art appreciation.  I would have done very badly in such a class.) 

What I did hear was the tension between the individual and the crowd.  As the movements went on there were periods of the individual voice (the idee fix that popped up throughout the piece in different parts of the orchestra). Sometimes the individual voice was enthralled, sometimes depressed, sometimes light hearted, sometimes heavy.  And there was the crowd.  Sometimes detached.  Sometimes driving its own way.  And in the march, overwhelming.  LIstening to this, I wondered at the tension.  The tension of those who would wish to find their own path, who may start off as being treated with benign neglect by the crowd, but then can find themselves in direct conflict with an unforgiving multitude/mob.  With a chaotic end.

Of course, re-reading the program notes, I see that what I heard was similar and different then what was intended.  But if you make the claim that music and art are forms of communication, and the idea that interpreting a musical work is a collaboration between composer, performer and audience, then this was a delightful example.  Even if the attempts of two music professors was somewhat wasted on this leaky memory.

PSO Notes: Mixing the media

[Originally written for the Pittsburgh Symphony Orchestra: Outside Perspective]

I've told my students that they need to learn how to ask questions about other people's work, because if they stay in our field, they will always be entering someone else's territory. For all their skills and all they bring, they will always be entering someone else's environment, someone else's situation, someone else's world. And when that is the case, the first steps are to prove to the other person that you are paying attention to them. While you can ignore the guy on the ground if you happen to have authority behind you, you can get a lot further if the guy on the ground is convinced you are working for their interests.

I enjoy classical music because of its abstractions. And that so many have chosen to take the challenge of actually communicating something within the abstractions and creating works with such range. So I look upon pieces like Danielpour's collaboration with Maya Angelou with a somewhat skeptical eye. Is it forcing something that does not need to be forced? Or is it that the music could not stand on its own, and needed to vocals to give focus that could not be done otherwise? (we already know that Angelou's poetry can stand on its own)

In the event, I confess I was barely listening to the words. I was listening to music of orchestra and voice. And hearing the hope of youth to the melancholy of age. To a combination of music and words, that seemed to do all right even without the words.

Book Review: Welcome to Afghanistan by Benjamin Tupper

Welcome To Afghanistan: Send More Ammo by Benjamin Tupper


My rating: 4 of 5 stars
Benjamin Tupper was a New York National Guardman sent to Afghanistan as part of an Embedded
Training Team, a two-man team that is embedded into an Afghan Army unit to train Afghan soldiers how to be real soldiers, by living with them and going into combat with them. When you see in the news discussions on giving the Afghans the ability to defend themselves, this is how it is done.

In his civilian life, Tupper is a social worker, and he describes his writing these blog entries that turned into this book as a part of his therapy. As such, the stories in the book range widely across the range of emotions. Pride in a job well done, joy in something working or a lesson properly taught, cursing at mistakes made, wonder of a disaster very nearly avoided through no fault of his own, depression of the loss of a comrade, exaltation over mere survival. And he even takes you home, as he deals with both his own demons and tries to help some of the other ETTs who have come back and have to reintegrate themselves into American society.

There is no claim of looking at a bigger picture here. It is one man discussing his experience as part of the U.S. military at war. But the ETT experience is distinctive in the world of war. Missing are the supportive comrades of arms that the soldier can lean on for support during and in between combats. The ETT works in pairs, away from the close support of other American units. The ETT is exposed to all the same hazards as the Afghan army units he is with, and because he is different, he is exposed to even more hazards and stresses as an outsider to the group he is embedded in. And even when ETTs joined the rest of the Army (like his trips to Bagram) it is like a different world. Other then special forces type units, there are none like this.

I overlapped with Tupper in Afghanistan for a month. I'm not saying I knew him, but I recognize his characterizations of people (Army and local), events and situations.

View all my reviews >>

QOTD: INFORMS 2009 Part 1

P1: What do you do?
. . .
P1: What does your wife do?
. . .
P1: You are going to have brilliant babies!

P2: (while standing between two baggage claim terminals for 5+ minutes) What baggage claim are the bags from ___ coming?
Me: I know nothing.
. . .
Me to P2: You know, I try really hard to cultivate the 'I know nothing' look, obviously I'm not doing nearly a good enough job at it.
P2: You already got your bag.

P3: "Buenos dias (more stuff in Spanish). Ooh, (aside to coworker) I just started speaking in spanish to him."

P4: I did not know anyone else was doing work on ___. How come I don't know who you are?!
. . .
P4: (to a section chair) I want to have a session on ___ (next year). (to me) You will have something, right?
Me: My student will have something ready.

Me to P5: I'm here to do what traditionally gets done at conferences, meeting someone who works one block away from me.